Ouch. This would be worthless to me in its current state. I'd want to use it to pace myself on climbs but the ones around here are not consistent. Lots of changes in grade due to switchbacks and whatnot.

I guarantee, though, they wouldn't release with accuracy data like that.

An advantage small players like Stages have is they can afford to beta-test on users. Stages-1 will crash and burn, but they'll come out with a Stages-2 with two arm units and things will get better, I predict. Garmin doesn't have that luxury.

An advantage small players like Stages have is they can afford to beta-test on users. Stages-1 will crash and burn, but they'll come out with a Stages-2 with two arm units and things will get better, I predict. Garmin doesn't have that luxury.

Isn't it the complete opposite? Startups don't have the resources to absorb a failed product before releasing a second iteration. I agree that they can release a buggy product in limited quantities and it's better tolerated, and overall can take more risks, but the stakes for their first product are very high.

what I find kind interesting is that Stages, is sort of saying, and I admit that I am reaching.....

1. you can't prove that it's ours that is off 2. one power meter hooked up to two head units gets two different reading!!!!!!! This is not good for anybody if true!!!! 1st I have heard of this.( I wonder if this is why has taken garmin and brim so long to get to market) ( you have to give credit to quarq they were later than they said but they still delivered closer to their date than to garmin and brim)3. it very very hard to get that 1.5 % accuracy.

DC's review is not good for Stages. I find it interesting that he is the only one that I have found that has "tested" it real world and not just reprinting the press day/ride they had in Boulder. Anybody have a different review with data? Ray is good but he can't the the single source when making a purchasing decisions. Even he calls out more than once and the 1st time in any of his reviews that i can remember is that it could be him and his use case. very very strange.

That being said, I think we have to given Stages a little time to 1. help us understand why Ray's data is they way that it is 2. updates to to their software. ( as everyones knows hardware easy , software very very hard.)3. clean up their message. The reprinting the press day/ride they had in Boulder, have said multiple conflicting things, shipping dates, all the info on the Cannondale models and such.

what I find kind interesting is that Stages, is sort of saying, and I admit that I am reaching.....

1. you can't prove that it's ours that is off 2. one power meter hooked up to two head units gets two different reading!!!!!!! This is not good for anybody if true!!!! 1st I have heard of this.( I wonder if this is why has taken garmin and brim so long to get to market) ( you have to give credit to quarq they were later than they said but they still delivered closer to their date than to garmin and brim)3. it very very hard to get that 1.5 % accuracy.

On #3 I fully agree: no power meter has 1.5% except maybe for Powertap (which has the drivetrain loss issue, and which loses precision as it ages). I state that with high confidence. The "constant cadence approximation" from using a magnetic cadence measurement that ticks once per revolution is enough to kill that.

On #1: that's the brilliance of the review. He calibrates to a LeMond trainer which since it uses big fat fans for resistance should be quite stable as a reference.

At a given power the LeMond should be stable: constant LeMond power = constant power. It doesn't mean the ratio of powers on the LeMond is correct, so don't think because Quarq matches LeMond at one power it should match at all powers or the Quarq is wrong. For example, maybe LeMond models power proportional to speed to the 2.5 power, but it's more accurately speed to the 2.4 power. So focus on segments of near-constant LeMond power. The Quarq tracks the LeMond, but the Stages is all over the place.

On #3 I fully agree: no power meter has 1.5% except maybe for Powertap (which has the drivetrain loss issue, and which loses precision as it ages). I state that with high confidence. The "constant cadence approximation" from using a magnetic cadence measurement that ticks once per revolution is enough to kill that.

I always thought that the spider based powermeters included multiple hall effect sensors so that they could have a more accurate cadence reading throughout the pedal stroke.

Last edited by deek on Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:37 am, edited 2 times in total.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum